Jaenisch Gambit against 1.c4

This is the opening:

There are a few things this opening achieves:

It takes the c4 pawn off of a place where it attacks d5
It immediately allows one to fianchetto the c8 bishop if one is so inclined
the hole at b5 can be used sometime in the future to place the rook behind and attack with
It allows for an open, tactical game from the outset with its own unique character; the positions in which can be quite striking and fun to play
It will catch the English player off guard/unorthodox
Nevertheless, how do you think this opening holds up with just responding with e5 SoupTime4?

I've looked into this gambit a little, and the general consensus is that you get no compensation from it. 

If you're looking for a gambit against the english with very little theory, try this:

Also, if you do play that gambit, try this line:

Those gambits are truly rare. But what can we do against them as white?

After 1.c4 b5 2.cxb5 a6 3.bxa6 Bxa6 I would certainly play 4.Nf3, 5.g3, 6.Bg2, 7.0-0, 8.d3 (against the Ba6) and 9.Nc3.

After 1.c4 d5 2. cxd5 c6 3. dxc6 Nxc6 I think I would play the same stuff. 

Are there any recommended theoretical moves after such gambits? 

Thank you

The theory in both these is pretty similar, black tries to exploit open lines to get some sort of positional compensation.

Here is a sample:

The compensation is getting the pawn off the c4 square.

It's a fine gambit yes

The compensation for a losing position is the reputation gained for being a dashing player.

What are you talking about? Why would you go Bb7? I don't know what point you're trying to prove

He is making fun of you, but this is simply disrespectful. It's not because one likes a gambit considered inferior that we have the right to call him a moron. 

IMO he is pointing out a "gap" in the logical reasoning that what is obtained compensates for what is lost but showing the next step of the same logic leads to an absurd conclusion. If you take a math class where you have to prove things rather than grind out a number, you'll experience this sort of 'disrespect' often.

Very rude for an IM to do

"It takes the c4 pawn off of a place where it attacks d5
It immediately allows one to fianchetto the c8 bishop if one is so inclined
the hole at b5 can be used sometime in the future to place the rook behind and attack with
It allows for an open, tactical game from the outset with its own unique character; the positions in which can be quite striking and fun to play
It will catch the English player off guard/unorthodox"

This is all it does if you could just read my first post

@Oakus, you might want to look up the term "hole": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_chess#H

Oh yes because I’m a horrible just because I like a certain openening

More discussion wanted on this gambit line.

@leisuretimeplayer There is not much to say about it.

unfortunately white can also shove the pawn down black's throat if the pawn stays there... 

the gambit also achieves cramping black's position on the queenside, but if the pawn can be regained (which I don't see coming), then there isn't much to say. 

A fianchetto'd bishop and a hole that can easily be covered up by the b and d pawns is very little compensation for a cramping pawn, limiting the mobility of the black pieces.

Note that after the super natural moves e4/Nc3 the extra pawn is already covered twice, without even trying.

that's what i mean.