1...Nc6 looks weird to me as white can kick it away like you said.
I recommend 1...c6! followed by Qb6 and a5 to immediately take advantage of white's weakened queenside. I believe the main line in this opening continues 2.Bb2 Qb6 3.a3 a5! 4.c4 (only decent move) axb4 5.c5 Qc7 6.axb4 Rxa1 7.Bxa1 and here black should have a good game since he can develope easily and then try to attack white's over-extended queenside. I actually prefer black here.
Cubnoble,
I've actually had good practical results with the orangutan. The most popular replies I experienced were alot of king's indian and queen's indian setups so those are the first thing to be ready for. It's good to be prepared for the mainline. Until you are booked up on it, you have various options such as 1. b4 e5 2. a3(which I dislike personally), or 1.b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6 4. Nf3 and just castle right away. Then there are the various "refutations" of the sokolsky like the 1...c6 comment above but if you truly learn this opening you'll find that they are generally rather superficial choices by black.
If you are serious about taking up the orangutan, I'd get the Lapshun book 1.Play b4. and Theory and Practice of the Sokolsky by Conticello. The first book has better annotations and illustrative games, but the second book has more thorough coverage of the possible lines.
However, I would warn you that playing b4 might not be the best thing for your chess improvement over the long haul. Firstly, because the number of master level games to look to as an example of proper play is much more limited then with other openings, and secondly, I feel like you generally find yourself playing a more positional game. I got better at positional play and planning but am now taking up 1.e4 because I want to get more open games and attacking positions. There may be something to be said for learning the classical openings first in chess development. When I was looking at Lapshun's games in his book, I was generally amazed at the tactical ability behind many of his moves, but I don't think he learned that playing 1.b4. He probably learned chess playing 1.e4 first and only after getting good at it took up 1.b4. Well, that's just my guess anyhow. Whatever you decide on, good luck.
I find it interesting that the only problem you have with 1 b4 is that it's positional. I don't disagree that it may be better to study tactical games like 1 e4 first (personally I didn't, and my tactics were terrible for a long time. I learned tactics from other things, like puzzles and random master games [not however necessarily with 1 e4], but it probably would have been more convenient if I had studied 1 e4... oh well), but my problem with it would be that white at best is equal. At my point in my chess, I really do find it helpful to have that opening advantage, and be able to dictate the play and pressure my opponent while keeping him more passive, so I play 1 d4 mostly.
Also, I don't think openings like 1 b4 are so rich in their potential positions, compared to mainstream openings like e4 and d4 (perhaps c4 and nf3 as well). Instead, there's probably less possibilties, and this can become a problem against stronger players when they know the reaction to those plans when b4 will maybe lack too much bite.
But other than that it seems ok.
but my problem with it would be that white at best is equal. At my point in my chess, I really do find it helpful to have that opening advantage, and be able to dictate the play and pressure my opponent while keeping him more passive, so I play 1 d4 mostly.
Also, I don't think openings like 1 b4 are so rich in their potential positions, compared to mainstream openings like e4 and d4 (perhaps c4 and nf3 as well). Instead, there's probably less possibilties, and this can become a problem against stronger players when they know the reaction to those plans when b4 will maybe lack too much bite.
But other than that it seems ok.
On the point of white against best play being equal...doesn't really bother me. There are plenty of more popular openings out there like the giucco piano, king's gambit, london system, smith morra gambit, etc. who receive the dreaded "with best play only equal" label, and they still get played and lead to wins. In both Tal's and Karpov's game collections I remember going over at least one game where they purposely didn't try for an opening advantage ,and this is high level chess. Even if it is theoretically equal, as a practical matter, I could show you my tournament games, with most of my 1.b4 outings I end up with a nice position out of the opening. So this has never been the issue for me.
However, you may have a point on the potential richness/possibilities with an opening like 1.b4. I did end up sometimes feeling like I wasn't able to set difficult problems for my opponents, and that 1.b4 lacks "bite". But that might just be my lack of ability.
Thanks for your hlep guys! I have a question though - 1.b4 Nc6 shouldn't white push the pawn and put the knight under pressure with 2. b5? I am trying to make this my secret weapon for tournaments but I can't seem to ever win with it. I am 0-3 right now. Any suggestions?