There are two hypotheses as to why repeat victimization at specific addresses -- referred to as hot spots -- appear to be more intense. The first hypothesis is that offenders in the area are more prolific or return to known or replenishing opportunities more frequently. The second hypothesis is that there is a concentration of nearby offenders whose routine activities expose them to the same opportune victims. There is an apparent overlap of repeat victimization of place and hot spots. Some of the overlap between these concepts can be attributed to analytic factors associated with how mapping software is used to identify hot spots. Discovering the most accurate analytic procedure for identifying hot spots and communicating this to practitioners is an especially pressing issue given the increasing use of geographic information systems (GIS) among police agencies to examine and identify crime problems. The study of crime concentration must address whether the analytic techniques available handle the issue of outliers well. If not, scholars must identify potential diagnostic instruments and/or decide whether to include extreme values in the analyses. This issue is even more prominent when the arbitrariness of crime data is acknowledged. Not all events are reported or recorded. It is standard practice to examine crime concentration and repeat victimization with single crime types. Additional examination of this issue is necessary to enable stronger tests of the overlap between repeat victimization and hot spots. 2 figures, 2 tables, 93 notes