Traxler Counter Gambit

For all aggressive players, this is an opening which I really like and I would really recommend it, but I just wanted to know more about the game that Traxler played against another Chessmaster from where this opening stemmed.

It goes as:

Here's the game that Traxler played against that **chessmaster** Reinisch in 1896 I believe... truly an eye-opening game.

Shows how great a thinker Traxler was...

Just got burned by this gambit while playing Fried Liver. Ouch!!!

How do you reach a Traxler by way of the Fried Liver Attack?

Traxler-1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5

Fried Liver Attack-1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7?! (better is 6.d4! with the Lolli)

you're right that my game took the path of the line you label Traxler, but is it really not Fried Liver there if (5. Nxf7?)? I guess we are coming down to semantics. In any case, doesn't your definitional structure suggest it's the Fried Liver attack only if the attack is actually effective? Maybe a better way to phrase my post was I got burned for trying to play the Fried Liver.

Paraphrasing Adorjan I would say that the Traxler is a bright idea which loses.

I had the feeling in reviewing the game that if I didn't accept the gambit I might be in better shape. Is it that simple, or does beating it require some thinking further down the line?

this was the game, btw 

You simply took on f7 with the wrong piece.

There are three "refutations" of the Traxler- namely 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bd5 (rather the easiest to play as White), 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3 (objectively even stronger, although White has to be careful about a few pattern tricks) and 5.d4!? which I like best, simply because it's less analysed/well known.

In all three "refutations" Black's compensation for the pawn is at best dubious.