Rounding ES pivot point values to 0.25

It has been suggested that the support, resistance, and pivot point values that are shown on the ES daily notes sheet (e.g. E-mini S&P500 September 2010) be rounded to increments of 0.25 instead of increments of 0.01.

So instead of seeing a value of 1054.08 (for example) as the pivot point you would instead see 1054.00. Instead of 1054.21, you would see 1054.25.

How do you feel about this?

If you want the pivot values to be rounded to increments of 0.25 then vote this post up. If not, then vote it down.

Reply to this topic with other comments, suggestions, thoughts...

This is a fantastic idea, given that the ES cannot trade in between those rounded-to values.

The following symbols now have the following rounding for pivot calculations:

ES Sep 2010 (quarter points)
NQ Sep 2010 (quarter points)
FTSE 100 Sep 2010 (half points)

Also, on the pivot point calculator you will notice a new option Round to tick size. Enter 0.25 in here to get it to round the results to 0.25 for ES or NQ etc.

Yes good idea, likewise with other contracts like the Bund and Eurostoxx which could be rounded up/down to the nearest minimum price movement.

Originally posted by pboyles

Yes good idea, likewise with other contracts like the Bund and Eurostoxx which could be rounded up/down to the nearest minimum price movement.

It looks like the Bund Futures trade in ticks of 0.01 size. Is that correct? If so then it doesn't need rounding.

However the Eurostoxx Futures I assume (from the prices) trades in whole points so that would be rounded to exclude the decimal point. Would you agree with that?

Question by email:

I have a question about Weekly/Daily Pivots for T-Notes and Bonds. The pivots that you post are not rounded to ticks(halves/quoters of a tick. E.g. 126-278, that is PP for 10 year note for the day following Oct 19.
Could you please explain what does it mean? Is it for example 126.278(should be 126-08) or 126-27.8 and should be 126-28?

126-278 is 126-27.8 if you consider the fractional portion 32nds. If, however, you consider the fractional part 320nds then 278 is the number that you're looking at so it would be 278/320 or 27.8/32.

You are correct that they are not rounded and should be rounded and I hope that we will get to that at some point in the future. So 126-278 would be rounded to 126-280 and 126-277 would be rounded to 126-275.