Simple question. Say the nice area is Seattle, or San Diego... a nice big city. An okay area like Phoenix or Las Vegas and etc.

I don't know if I shoot for okay buildings in okay areas for more cash flow than less cash flow in very nice areas. By the way, I'm buying all cash, no loans. I'm shooting for low risks, less headache

So which one would you go with?

@Eli Ebrahim If you want to go "low headache" then I'd go "full low headache".  Buy where you are, use a property manager, still be able to drive by the property, etc.  If you even *think* you want to go "less headache" then I'd definitely go that way.  For what it's worth, it's always "less passive" starting out than you think it will be.  

That said, I think what you'll find is that you could go into Scottsdale in Arizona and it will be nicer than El Cajon here in San Diego.  So each metro market is going to have better vs. worse areas.  For my taste, I'll take the "better part of the worse area" if that distinction makes sense.  Somewhere where I can get better quality tenants, might sacrifice some cash-flow, but hopefully don't end up with tenants trashing the place.   

So that's my two cents, others will probably have way groovier opinions than mine...