[AaronBrown]

The trouble with this choice is either advantage would be so overwhelming that you wouldn't make full use of it. The amount of money you could make is limited by how much the other players are willing to lose, not the rules of the game. It's like asking if you'd rather box someone knowing that any touch would knock them out, or that none of their punches could hurt you. You'd win either way.

If you knew everyone's hands, you would be in for every flop; most turns and a lot of rivers. You would check and call your way a lot, then fold or turn superaggressive. You would almost never lose a showdown. This would lead everyone else (if they couldn't quit the game) to check or call until you folded.

Eventually this would lead to you collecting a lot of blinds, and once in a while someone going all-in preflop with a very strong hand. Most of the time you would fold to this, once in a while you would call with slightly better than a 50% chance of winning. You'd make consistent money from the blinds, but that's it.

Knowing the board means you would rarely go in, only about 1 time in N, where N is the number of players at the table. When you went in you would know you had a strong hand from the beginning. You would look very lucky to the other players. If they were good, they would not adapt to that. Eventually the only plausible explanation would be that you were cheating (as you are). The statistical evidence would be enough to get you bounced from a tournament, or beat up or shot, depending on the game.

Therefore, in both cases, you would tone down your use of the advantage. You would win more money, and live longer, by mixing up the play so it seemed more natural.