Putting More Equity Into A Single Property vs Diversifying

[Taylor Cole]

Hello, All! This is my first time posting on BP, and I am a very new investor. 

For the sake of this question, let's use a $200,000 home(s) for my below example:

If all other factors are neutral, say one had $120,000 worth of equity to put down for a leveraged investment, would one traditionally benefit more from putting all of that equity into a single property (more equity, lower interest rates, no PMI, lower monthly payment etc) OR would one typically benefit more by investing at or below the traditional 20% down and purchasing 3 properties with $40,000 down for each (more portfolio diversity, risk mitigation, potentially more cashflow etc)?

Does my above question have a case-by-case answer (e.g. do the math and see which specific investment(s) has more potential for a higher return and higher cashflow) OR is there an industry-standard cookie-cutter answer (e.g. NEVER do this or ALWAYS do that, when presented the opportunity)?                       
Thank you all so much, in advance. 

[Greg Scott]

Assuming they cashflow when leveraged, more houses is always better: 
- More depreciation to offset taxes
- More appreciation due to four properties
- More protection from lawsuits because lawyers like to attack large equity
- More diversification
- More options later (sell one, two, three, or four)
- More scale to get better pricing from vendors