Well that does help clear up the confuse (mine) concerning the name of the opening.  (Although I still like the name Balogh Defence better!  )

MNb mentions, after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bd3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 g6 6.Nxf6+ gxf6, the natural move 7.Nf3.  This does seem stronger than the aggressive 7.h4 but I'm still not sure if this gives White any advantage.  In the BCG.cbv that Hayward offers for download you'll find 4 games with 7.Nf3.  One is the casual email game Hayward-Owens (They played a few games by email to test the openings soundness.) which ended in a draw.  The other 3 were with J.Lens playing Black in I believe BCG thematic tournaments.  He won all 3 games.  This doesn't prove that Black is better of course, or even that he's OK here, but for what it's worth Black's position seems playable to me.

Alumbrado confirms my suspicion and the fact that Black not alway can force e7-e5 does not feel good to me.
And what about the unambitious 1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bd3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 g6 6.Nxf6+ gxf6 7.Nf3 ?
Of course this is not a straightforward refutation. But compared the French Exchange Variation and the Petrov Black seems worse off. If it is true, that White can play for an edge without any risk here, this is enough reason for me to turn my back to the Balogh Defense.

The only book I know which pays serious attention to the Balogh, is Rolf Schwarz' book on the Dutch: indeed he reaches this via the Staunton Gambit.

Yes, you're right.  It's not a gambit.  Good point!

I think Balogh might have called it a gambit because of the variation 1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.c4 e5! 5.dxe5 Nc6 6.exd6 Bxd6 with good play for the pawn, but I'm just guessing here.

No, Black can't always enforce ...e5 and Hayward says that he's had a hard time making the variations with an isolated e-pawn work.  I suppose the "counter-gambit" label might be because some seem to believe that any gambit by Black is a counter-gambit.  But I personally don't like that usage.

One nice variation where Black seems to achieve ...e5 nicely and is very common is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bd3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 Nxe4 5.Bxe4 d5 6.Bd3 g6 7.h4 Bg7 (I can't remember, but 7...Qd6 first might be correct.) 8.h5 Qd6 9.hxg6 hxg6 10.Rxh8 Bxh8 and Black gets a good game after the ...e5 break (possibly with ...Nc6 first and maybe 0-0-0).

I don't think we've looked at this on the forum before and I'm curious to see if anyone else has dabbled with it.  And if anyone knows of a refutation (or refutations possibly) of 2...f5.
 
When I saw this defence for the first time I was extremely skeptical concerning its viability.  It was only after being beaten game after game with it (perhaps by Keith Hayward!) on ICC by someone with a comparable blitz rating that I started to take it seriously.  I decided to read Hayward's 5 part article posted at the Chessville.com site (http://www.chessville.com/downloads/misc_downloads.htm#BCG) and to play some speed chess with it.  As I mentioned on another thread, the Balogh Defence has turned out to be my most successful opening with the Black pieces in blitz chess!

As Keith notes in his articles, the Balogh does involve high risk.  What else would you expect with a move like 2...f5?  However, he also says that he thinks the opening is sound in the hands of a creative player.  I still have strong doubts about that, but it certainly carries more sting than one would think.  I'll wait to see if this post draws any interest before posting any analysis.  Don't be afraid to try it.  At the very least you get a good surprise defence for your next blitz encounter against 1.e4.  (Or sometimes 1.d4 d6 2.e4 f5.  Incidentally, you'll find the Balogh in ECO under 1.d4 f5 2.e4 d6.  A rather unlikely possibility in my opinion.  One other quick note.  Hayward refers to this opening as the Balogh Counter Gambit.  I don't really like this name.  Doesn't White have to offer a gambit first for a defence to be a counter-gambit?)