The game is interesting, but with the move order I play, it may take a very long time to safely get the pawn to e4.  This is because unlike in the game, my queen's bishop is still inside the pawn chain, so I have one less supporter for the advance.  I'm not sure if it would be as effective with a white Nd2 and Qc7 following, and then a Qb fianchetto for white.

Thanks for the replies.  I think I may start using this as my main defense to 1. d4, 1. c4, and 1. Nf3 now.  I like the fact that black can arrange his pieces in many different configurations, it gives a lot of room for innovation.   

I now have another question however:

This probably is also an issue in a king's indian attack formation but what if the following sequence occurs:

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 d6
3. Nc3 Nbd7
4. Nf3 e5
5. dxe5

Now black has 2 responses:

5. ...Nxe5 
6. Nxe5 dxe5
7. Qxd8 Kxd8

I don't have enough experience with this to tell if this is bad for black or if it is easy equality.  I am uncertain because there is also the Ukrainian Old Indian where an exchange in the center supposedly brings fairly easy equality (at least in Petrosian's games).  Here is the sequence: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd8 Kxd8 and then black follows up with c6 and eventually Kc6.   

Then there is the response (probably consistent with KIA):

5. ...dxe5

This prevents an exchange of knights, etc.  I recently had a game like this and I replied 5. ...dxe5.  Eventually my opponent fianchettoed his QB and was exerting quite a bit of pressure on my e-pawn with his knight, bishop, and queen.  This was exacerbated because my knight stayed on f6 for a while and I couldn't provide support to e5 via a pawn.

I managed to keep almost equal with a few tactical sequences, although I can still say I lost in the middle game.  I ended up swindling my opponent in the endgame and won, however. 

Anyway, I was wondering what the recommendation would be here.

Dear Mike,

  I think you posted this in right section. After all, the Old Indian (or at least in the form that you wish to play it ) isn't exactly a "daring defence"...
In my view, there are two important differences with the KID : 
First of all, since Black does not fianchetto his K's Bishop (and doesn't play ...Ktc6) he has less pressure on -d4 and will find it more difficult to force White to close the centre with d5. Black usually must resort to playing ...ed himself, and trying to put some pressure on -e4 with moves such as ...Re8/...Bf8 and maybe ...Ktc5 and ...a5 or ...Kte6. Another possible plan, depending on the situation, is breaking with ...c6 and ...d5. In any case you must ask yourself whether you would prefer to have your KB on -f8 or -g7 in these positions...
Secondy, if White does close the centre with d5, Black does not have the same ...f5 break as in the KID, since ef cannot be answered by gf. A more typical plan is ...Ktd7-f8-g6 with King side piece play.

An old-Indian setup is playable against virtually anything (1. Ktf3/ 1. c4 etc),
but against 1. e4, it's called a Philidor (only against the King's Gambit is it inferior).

So if you're looking for a solid, universal defence, it's well worth considering. 
And let's not forget Averbach-Kotov Zurich '53...

                                                            Regards,
                                                                 Hubert