It is on the DVD Easy to Master Card Miracles #9 which is available on Michael's website:
https://store.ammarmagic.com/easy-to-master-card-miracles-9--dv.html
It is also in the book Best of All Worlds which appears to be in stock at Stevens:
https://www.stevensmagic.com/shop/best-of-all-worlds-paul-curry-book/.
Although Ammar's handling (which incorporates elements from Harry Lorraine and Aldo Colombini) is good in that it only uses a part f the deck and that it is is impromptu, it still has the incongruence necessary to do the original effect. For that reason, I like John Armstrong's and Eugene Burger's versions better - they avoid that incongruence.
We live in a magic world that makes "impromptu" always seem better than whatever the opposite may be. It isn't. Even with a master such as Ammar performing this, there is the sense that he is fiddling with the deck. The moment the magician touches the deck, it goes from being impossible to being sleight of hand. When they touch the deck as much as in that effect, any spectator will know the did "something" even if they don't know what the something is. Also, it is unlikely that a spectator has their own deck.
There are a lot of good ways to get into OOTW set-up using a shuffled deck in use. A simple way is to use a stripper deck. Also, John Gustaferro has a great effect called "Either Or" in his book One Degree that would work. Roberto Giobbi's TNT in Card College Light also allows you to show a shuffled deck and get into OOTW set-up (which is diabolical since the spectator does the work for you) -- his version of OOTW called "Intuition" also is very good.
As for the prediction... I think it weakens the trick -- or better yet turns a miracle into a trick. Having 100% correct is amazing... having one off deflates the level of amazement. "Hey, let's clap for the guy that almost did something amazing." Then, the attention is turned to the magician's prediction, which of course is correct. However, that takes the glory away from the spectator and focus the attention on the magician. Worse, it gives more credence to the idea that the magician "did something" to make the effect happen... how else could he have predicted what would have happened? At the end, the audience thinks that they have been tricked... twice and that forfeits any amazement.
Finally, Ammar's presentation is typical "say-do-see" patter. He says it, does it and then asks the audience to see the results. There are a lot of ways this can be presented to make it meaningful by providing an explanation as to why the spectator can do this. In my opinion, the best presentation that I've seen is French Postcards by Chris Philpott (which uses John Armstrong's method).