I believe it does affect positively the acceptance of a paper.
Pre-publication peer review is biased by a number of factors, particularly the typically low number of reviews, their brevity and superficiality, the secrecy around what happens, field politics.
In fact, I believe my name is being recurrently added to the acknowledgements section of a number of papers issuing from a bad group I recently happened to work with. These people believe I am fairly well-known in our field of research, and probably seek to avoid me as a reviewer. They have first-hand told me other manoeuvres locally (nationwide) employed to skew peer reviews and papers' acceptance. Also I am aware of a number of "reputable professors" who actually secretly pass on their review assignments to PhD students and postdocs who just want to "be done with that" -- likely these are reviewers who will cling onto just anything to support accepting/rejecting a paper.
So, if you wish to use this as an asset to speed up acceptance of your paper, go ahead. The system as it is remains quite open to manipulation. However do fear a few judicious reviewers and readers that do exist everywhere, particularly after publication of your paper. The weaknesses of your manuscript might be so easy to spot and expose that a single easily-published paper might be your reputation's demise. A late public exposure that could be avoided with the help of a couple of good reviewers.
Good luck, and welcome to the Academia.
P.S. Please note that I am not saying that you ought not to add names of contributors to your acks section. These people must be acknowledged for their participation. Also I am not saying that you necessarily seek to game the system: you're just asking here because you're curious. I am warning you and other passersby of some reality in relying on peer-review and paper acceptance gimmicks as 'scientific career shortcuts'.