In discussion at the Summit it was concluded that this bet could be as small as a min bet or raise.
Chet brings up a good point, one which I think identifies a gap in the rule.
In any given betting round, if a player says "pot" or some variation thereof
when he is already facing a bet, this technically means "I raise the amount of the pot". The rule, as written, currently says "it does bind the player to making a bet" appears to leave open the possibility that the player could merely call a bet when asked to clarify his action, which is clearly nothing close to what likely was the player's intention. I think a case can be made that the player should be held to a min-raise.
The potential "angle" that the rule leaves open is when a player says "pot", and then just puts in the minimum wager possible when asked to clarify his action. Once could argue that this is similar to an "I call you and raise to X" type string bet, which we rule as a call. Also, as Chet pointed out, the player who says "pot" did not actually use the word "raise". So on the other hand, I think that a case can also be made to hold the player to the lesser action, being a call, if that's what he chose to do when asked to clarify his action.
Personally, I tend to lean towards supporting the first view -- i.e. the player should be held to a min-raise. A "pot" bet clearly, IMO, signifies an intention to bet
some "big" amount -- but that amount is just undefined because we can't count the pot. However, the intended amount is clearly not in the order of a call.
My suggested amendment to Rule 43 would be as follows:
Players are entitled to be informed of the pot size in pot-limit games only. Dealers will not count the pot in limit and no-limit games. Declaring “I bet the pot” is not a valid bet in games that are not pot-limit no-limit but it does bind the player to making a bet of a valid amount when not facing a bet, and to making a raise of a valid amount when facing a bet. These declarations may be subject to penalty.I agree with Mike that a penalty should be considered, and in my mind, if a player pots and then simply bets or raises the minimum when clarifying his action, with no attempt to bet an amount close to what "pot" probably would have been, then I think he has benefitted from making a large-sounding bet but risking the minimum, and this action should be penalized at the end of the hand.
(As a different but related point, I think Rule 44 (String Bets and Raises) should also include the 'subject to penalty' language. Players who intentionally use a string bet knowing that they will be held to a call, as an angle to try to slow down the action should be penalized. Similarly, players who intentionally say "raise" and then "call" knowing that they will be held to a raise, as an angle to try to induce a call should also be penalized.)