hamstring, that's what i got. there are pro's and con's for all, i'll try to list them (this is by no means a medical opinion, i just had lots of time to read about this, and this is how my doc put it on the table). patellar: pros are that it is done a ton, and has minimal stretch durning ht healing process. cons are that you'll get a weird nerve blindspot on your kneecap, feels really bad when you kneen. some dead guy's acl: pro - no damage to your leg i.e. don't have to harvest a graft. cons - they have a higher failure rate b/c your body has a greater chance of rejecting someone else's protein signature. hamstring: pro - it's a bundle of hamstring "strips" that are made into pretty much a rope, i've heard that each individual "strip" is 70% native acl strength, do the math, it has the possibility to be 280% stronger than your native acl. cons - they take a decent sized piece out of your hammy, it will make more rehab, and your hamstring will always be a little weird. it may have a tendancy to stretch a bit more, so you'll have "play" in your knee (this isn't very likely, but needs to be mentioned)
Now, from experience, having friends that have had both patellar, kadaver, hamstring and myself having hamstring, i'd go with the hamstring. the "weirdness" in my hamstring is not noticable a year and a half out of surgery, my acl is definatly strong, i don't know if stronger, but i don't think about it anymore, i totally trust my knee (which is the hardest thing to get back after the surgery: the mental aspect of the injury, the "trust" in your body). I didn't get any "play" in my knee, which, like i said is not common, but a concern none-the-less.
Overall, all of the surgeries will fix you, but i would recommend the hamstring in order to continue being as active as you are.