Thanks for the compliment Kieran. I didn't notice it before I made my last post.
D ICE R and Shakutau, I think what you're missing is that I'm not explicitly saying at any point during my act that I'm using NLP, suggestion, sleight-of-hand, or any particular technique. To be fair, I do have one routine where I talk about misdirection and pretend to switch cards from the participant's hand, but I don't explicitly mention any method elsewhere. I don't personally use the ACR patter I described, but I was just using that as an example. However, if I'm faking the use of suggestion, then I will absolutely commit and perform the trick exactly as if I was using it.
Just to be clear on this, I think it's a terrible idea to do a sleight-of-hand routine and say, openly at the start, "I'm going to use suggestion to convince you [of whatever]". Rather, you should perform the routine in such a way that it appears to be suggestion, or, if you're really clever, in such a way that it appears your trying to trick them into believing it's sleight-of-hand when it's actually psychological.
The best example of this is one of the most powerful things I do, forcing a card then reading their "tells" to divine it's identity. I don't tell them that that's what I'm doing, I just force the card, put the deck aside and spend three or four minutes reading them, using confusion techniques to apparently make them drop their guard and so on. Everyone afterwards tells me they can see what I'm doing, reading their body language. If I'd set it up as "I'm going to read your body language", that's just asking for them to search for another method. Now, this isn't quite consistent with what happened. Why did they have to pick a card rather than just think of one? However, no-one picks up on this. In the same way, you can overcome other inconsistencies, with people either forgetting about them completely, or sometimes even putting them down to me trying to mislead them.