Compare
(A) "If Anna was here, she would've known what to do."
(B) "If Anna had been here, she would've known what to do."
In (A), the speakers are currently considering what to do and lamenting that Anna isn't with them right now, because she would have been able to help them.
In (B), the speakers are discussing a past situation (we don't know how recent) where Anna's absence left them with no solution. The opportunity to do the right thing has now passed.
I think if you see the difference between the two, that will go a long way to helping you with similar constructs.
"If you (wear) a beard all the time, they (not recognize) you without it."
All the below are possible:
(A) If you wore a beard all the time, they would not recognize you without it.
(B) If you had worn a beard all the time, they would not have recognized you without it.
(C) If you were to wear a beard all the time, they would not recognize you without it.
(A) Can be used in a past sense, in a kind of confirmatory way: Given that you always wore a beard, then of course they wouldn't recognise you without it. But it can also be a suggestion for the future: if>then.
(B) In the past period referred to, he wasn't in the habit of wearing a beard, and therefore had no chance to pass unrecognised by removing it.
(C) More specific than the second sense of (A). Making a hypothetical suggestion concerning a group of people currently unknown; implying that at the moment he doesn't wear a beard all the time (or at all).
Best Answer
The structure that you're looking for is one of the numerous forms of the so-called mixed type conditional:
The if part is a subjunctive mood expressing a hypothetical situation: if I were you. The second part of the sentence is what would have happened if the hypothetical condition "I were you" was true.
Although not correct from a grammatical standpoint, in colloquial usage, it's quite possible to say was instead of were. However, I personally would advise against doing that: