>>713232228
If you need some number of chips to win a round, and the you can only feed the pants until you hit the limit, isn't it better the fewer hands this takes? Let's say you add 2 mult every hand. Then your score looks like C * (2 + 4 + 6 + 8), which is scales with the square of the number of hands played. Yet you only end up with 8 mult at the end.
If you were to add +10 mult every time, you could play C * (10 + 20) to get roughly the same score and win, but now you end up with 20 mult on the card because you didn't inflate your score with intermediate hands.