Since the early 21st century, within fuzzy mathematics, there has been a stream of research in the field of option pricing that introduces vagueness in the parameters governing the movement of the underlying asset price through fuzzy numbers (FNs). This approach is commonly known as fuzzy random option pricing (FROP). In discrete time, most contributions use the binomial groundwork with up-and-down moves proposed by Cox, Ross, and Rubinstein (CRR), which introduces epistemic uncertainty associated with volatility through FNs. Thus, the present work falls within this stream of literature and contributes to the literature in three ways. First, analytical developments allow for the introduction of uncertainty with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs), which are a generalization of FNs. Therefore, we can introduce bipolar uncertainty in parameter modelling. Second, a methodology is proposed that allows for adjusting the volatility with which the option is valued through an IFN. This approach is based on the existing developments in the literature on adjusting statistical parameters with possibility distributions via historical data. Third, we introduce into the debate on fuzzy random binomial option pricing the analytical framework that should be used in modelling upwards and downwards moves. In this sense, binomial modelling is usually employed to value path-dependent options that cannot be directly evaluated with the Black–Scholes–Merton (BSM) model. Thus, one way to assess the suitability of binomial moves for valuing a particular option is to approximate the results of the BSM in a European option with the same characteristics as the option of interest. In this study, we compared the moves proposed by Renddleman and Bartter (RB) with CRR. We have observed that, depending on the moneyness degree of the option and, without a doubt, on options traded at the money, RB modelling offers greater convergence to BSM prices than does CRR modelling.