9.16
Some will say that the 5 should be rounded up. However, 5 should only be rounded up to make the previous digit even. Otherwise the rounding introduces an upward bias. If you want details read on ... else skip.
Rounding:
Round up or down so that the new last digit is even.
Rationale:
Some people advise you to round up 0.5. Others say round down. The problem with that approach is as follows:
In the first case
If the number is 0.0 you don't need to round
If the number is 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 or 0.4 you round down
If the number is 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 or 0.9 you round up
So 4 downs and 5 ups (and one no change).
Net Result: you introduce an upward bias.
In the second scenario, you introduce a downward bias through rounding.
Possible solution:
Round up from 0.5 half the time, round down the other half. That satisfies the bias problem but introduces another - that of reproducibility. If someone else were to look at your data would they round up/down the same way you did? Unlikely. You need a system which will round 0.5 up half the time and down half the time but where the decision is made for you.
Hence the best solution is the answer given above: Round up or down so that the new last digit is even.
1.43
41.07
1.46
0.72 rounded to the nearest hundredth is 0.72. (Rounded to the nearest hundredth it is exactly the same.)
16000 is an integer and so already rounded to the nearest hundredth.16000 is an integer and so already rounded to the nearest hundredth.16000 is an integer and so already rounded to the nearest hundredth.16000 is an integer and so already rounded to the nearest hundredth.
It is 1.54 rounded to the nearest hundredth
It then is 16.11 rounded to the nearest hundredth
It is already to the nearest hundredth as 9.69
16.64
0.09
1.54
12.04
0.61
2.81
66.33
1.24
94.99