While it’s true the amount of the minimum bet cannot be altered because the big blind does not have enough to post the full amount, the amount that is in the pot is not implied at any point. The amount in the pot in this case is light, but it is what it is.

That is, I disagree that if the pot were calculated based on the actual amount that any player could enter the pot for the lesser amount. Better put, the blinds don’t define the minimum bet. The minimum bet defines the blinds.

Here’s a different scenario:

The small blind is $5K, the big is $10K, and both can post the required amount. The player under the gun only has a $5K chip and goes all-in. The player to his left wants to pot it. Now, if the ‘implied amount’ rule were in play, the limp should be counted as $10K, which clearly wouldn’t make sense.

Again, I respect Steve a great deal and would never doubt his calls. If there is such a rule on which Steve is basing his call, the rule doesn’t make sense.

And by the way Dan, I did not make a mistake. I was simply unsure of the correct amount and had to consult the floor for assistance. How dare you post that I made a mistake just days after showcasing my final table prowess

while i’m not quite ready to make an assertion of what was correct, i can tell you that 30k was not the ruling that was handed down.