Jerome Gambit: "Jerome Gambit Odds" and Ratings

I am involved in a game online, with a time limit of one day per move. My opponent is playing quite well, and it looks like we will draw.

I am rated about 500 points higher than he is, and although different systems calculate things differently, an online Win Probability Calculator suggests that I have a 96% chance of being successful. Interestingly enough, it also indicates that such a difference in ratings is equivalent to 4.16 pawns.

Oh, and I am playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.Bxf7+) - giving him "Jerome Gambit odds".

Is that enough material sacrificed to compensate for the rating difference? Giving up two pieces (approximately 6 pawns) for 2 pawns in return would make us about even, and a draw would be a reasonable result.

How about that? 

I stumbled over an interesting comment that Grandmaster Larry Kaufman a dozen years ago on the Rybka Chess Community Forum. The discussion concerned an upcoming match between a strong computer chess program and a FIDE Master, with the computer giving Kight odds.

[T]he Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so.

So - according to GM Kaufman, the rating value of a Knight handicap may be 1,000 points between quite strong players, but it shrinks as the players' skill levels shrink. (If the Jerome Gambit is a blunder, or a way to give odds, it might be relevant to revisit Geoff Chandler's "Blunder table"). 

I think that means that if you're an average club player giving "Jerome Gambit odds", to somebody rated only a 100 points or so below you, you're out-performing expectations!