961.62
Some people advise you to round up 0.5. Others say round down. The problem with either 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.
Leave it as it is 1.55 which is already in two decimal places
11.25 is already two decimal places.
rounded to two decimal places after the decimal point: 6.73
Rounded to two decimal places, 3.8978 is approximately equal to 3.90.
Round it up - to 0.05
0.1717 rounded to two decimal places is 0.17
Leave it as it is 1.55 which is already in two decimal places
11.25 is already two decimal places.
It is already in two decimal places as 131.88
22.238 rounded to two decimal places is 22.34
2.3432 rounded to two decimal places is 2.34
3.441239 rounded to two decimal places is 3.44
29.7054 rounded to two decimal places is 29.71
7.439 rounded to two decimal places is 7.44
8.588 rounded to two decimal places is 8.59.
The number 400.55 is already rounded to two decimal places.
Leave it as it is because it is already in two decimal places