One thing to think about is that it's a common myth that increasing sample size lower variance. Actually the opposite is true, variance increases with increased sample size. It's just that relative variance gets lower. So what that means is you're more likely to experience really big swings in a higher sample, but the size of the swings will be proportionally smaller when compared to your EV over that sample. As an example, over 10 games a swing of 3 games isn't that big can feel really big since it's in a small sample, wheras over 100 games you'll maybe find swings of 25 games, which are bigger swings in terms of number of BIs, but are proportionally small simply because the sample was bigger so your EV over the 100 games was bigger too.

In the end I don't think there's any good reason to increase sample over increasing quality, especially at low stakes where ever ROI is important. Increasing winrate is the only actual way to lower variance, so focusing on improving in my book is much better than focusing on putting in a lot of games. Higher ROI also means you won't need as big of a bankroll to move up in stakes. Because of this I'm a strong believer that most newer players should only play one table as long as possible since it boosts ROI and also is better for learning (though be aware not all people are created equal, and I will concede there are some people who actually play better and improve more at two tables). In the end at lower stakes moving up in stakes is almost always going to be better for your hourly than adding tables, so I'd only add tables once you've very confident in your game and so don't need the extra improvement and the extra roi and are already at a decently high stake (or perhaps because moving up to the next level is very difficult due to reg wars and so instead of that you can add a table as the next stake at that point instead).

Hope this helps!