If you're against a well-playing and balanced opponent, then this is actually a fairly complex question that should take into consideration a number of variables: your opening size, your opening range of hands, your opponent's re-raise size, and the number of players yet to act after the re-raise. The full answer, insofar as that is possible without the use of quantum computing, (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.2196v2.pdf) could easily be the size of most poker books
A birds-eye view of the entire dynamic is that this opponent's re-raise size from this position is going to force you to call or 4-bet, i.e. defend in some way, with about 20-25% of your open-raising range; otherwise, your opponent's re-raise is automatically profitable.
The reason that the above defense frequency, that 20-25%, is a range and not exact number is twofold. First, if we call, then our particular hand has post-flop equity which depends on our opponent's re-raising range. The more equity we have when we call, the more often we can get away with calling. Of course, we're still out of position post-flop, so if you're bad at realizing your equity, then you might be best off playing as tight as possible: tight enough to avoid giving a good player an auto-profiting 3-bet and to avoid borderline decisions out of position. Even if our opponent shows us aces, it might be worth it to set-mine in some circumstances, though rarely out of position and below 140BB stacks, give or take - again the "give and take" has to do with the ranges of the players involved. Secondly, the players yet to act have some shared responsibility to defend against this player's re-raise, so it's not as simple as saying "Oh he's risks 9 to win 13.5, so we simply take XYZ action set".
All remaining players have different motivations: different pot odds
, different positions, and different stack sizes. Also, you'll need to consider over-lapping frequencies. For example, if the small blind 4-bet in this hand, then how does the BB's "defending" distribution change? Is it about defending the 4-bet now, or are we still worried about the button player's 3-bet and thinking that the player in the SB is trying to exploit the button? Should we counter-exploit everyone by 5-betting all-in. Head explode.
The simpler way to look at this spot for 10nl and for now is that you have 2 huge factors that have you leaning toward a fold. First, you will have a very difficult time realizing equity with 88. Unless you flop a set, you're seeing at least one over-card to eights on the board 88% of the time. That means you're going to be playing a guessing game wherein your opponent controls the bet sizing and frequencies. Not a lot of fun! Secondly, players at 10nl usually either bluff far more frequently than optimal or far less frequently than optimal. 50 hands isn't enough to say one way or another about this particular player, but the population of players in general at 10nl are passive players who do not 3-bet a range against which 88 has enough equity to call pre-flop given these stack sizes. They're simply too tight and 88 is simply too weak, so fold.